Give Maoists a chance

Many seem to be questioning as to what is happening with UCPN (Maoist) of late. When Nepal’s towering political figure Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK) passed away, the same party that denied the opportunity to GPK to become the first president of Nepal fearing that he would be too powerful, declared that they will tread on the path laid down by him because he was a father figure who cut across ideological and political persuasions. Is the Maoists’ change of heart genuine? Or, is this a strategy to cash in on the passing away of a popular leader?

Coinciding with the passing away of GPK, Nepal’s fluid politics became even fluider when the former king Gyanendra Shah, and former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai tested political waters by questioning Nepal’s progress toward secularism and republicanism. The timing chosen to express these views attracted more attention than the views themselves. The Maoists analyzed that there is a real fear of a rightist surge, thus they would pitch for a last ditch to strike a deal with other political parties to promulgate the new constitution by May 28.

Well, although it came a little late, the political will to display flexibility while dealing with other parties on constitution-drafting and taking the peace process forward is definitely a positive sign.

Although the Maoists’ strategy still remains a paradox to many, pundits on Nepali politics speculate that if Nepal’s other political parties are ready to give the Maoists an opportunity to lead a new national unity government, the Maoists will cooperate in resolving longstanding and contentious political issues. Interestingly, the signal of renewed political will comes at a time when Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML are doing internal consultations and assessment of the political situation after the demise of GPK. Moreover, the flexibility shown by the Maoists is encouraging because the-most-frequently-cited reason for the failure of peace processes and development endeavors in many post-conflict societies is the lack of political will. Nepal’s peace process so far hinged on political will of the top leadership and this is the reason why GPK’s role as the convener is well-recognized and will surely be missed.

Nepal’s peace process has been on a bumpy road and has a long way to go before it reaches a logical end. However, Nepal also has many things to celebrate including integration of Maoists into mainstream politics, the successful holding of the Constituent Assembly (CA) election, and laying of the foundation for a secular, democratic and federal Nepal.

If the current coalition is not able to take the peace process to a logical conclusion, Nepal should look for an alternative government. Being the biggest stakeholder of Nepal’s peace process, the Maoists have the right to claim to lead the next government.

Until elections are held under the new constitution, the legitimacy of any major decision made during the transition period will always be questioned, particularly by those who enjoyed power and privileges during the previous regimes. Whether one agrees or not, the major gains of Nepal’s peace process – ranging from the removal of the king without spilling a drop of blood to the adoption of secularism and republicanism – were made possible only because of “consensus politics”. So long as the politics of consensus remains alive, the fear about the future of the peace process will gradually wither away.

In hindsight, the Maoists have made two major mistakes. First, with their emergence as the largest party, the Maoists gave consensus politics a pass. Had the Maoists accepted GPK as the president, they would have had an opportunity to lead a national unity government. Forcing NC to sit in the opposition subsequently proved very costly for the Maoists.

Second, the changing political priorities of the Maoists also contributed to political confusion. The Maoists exit from the government was to uphold civilian supremacy over the military. However, only after a few weeks of their protests, they shifted their focus from civilian supremacy to national sovereignty. The Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal famously said: “We would like to talk to the master (India), not with its puppet government.” This rhetoric did not last long as Dahal himself admitted that it was just rhetoric.

At some point, rather than allowing the CA to work on the constitution-drafting process, the Maoists adopted the strategy to unilaterally declare different parts of Nepal as autonomous states. To summarize, the Maoists never made constitution-drafting their top priority.

The uniqueness of Nepal’s peace process is that the political parties have been able to rise to the occasion when most needed. If the current coalition is not able to take the peace process to a logical conclusion, Nepal should look for an alternative government. Being the biggest stakeholder of Nepal’s peace process, the Maoists have the right to claim to lead the next government.

However, the need of the hour is that the Maoists need to put their acts together. Do the majority of people want a unity government so that Nepal’s peace process reaches a logical conclusion? The answer is ‘yes’. Do the majority of people trust the Maoists? The answer seems to be a ‘no’. Before making a claim to lead a new government, the Maoists should display genuine political will to finalize the issue of state restructuring, integrate and rehabilitate their cantoned combatants, dissolve the Young Communist League and agree on the modus operandi to resolve several contentious issues in the new constitution. The so-famous strategy of ‘trust but verify’ might be an appropriate strategy for NC and CPN-UML to move forward.

Allow the Maoists to lead the government, but make sure that all the contentious issues are resolved before forming the new government.

anga34@hotmail.com